IHearChains wrote:I love 21. But 20 is more like a necessary evil the only purpose is to get me up the hill so I can tee off on 21.

I agree and disagree. I love 21, too. But, I think 20 is an under-rated hole (yes, thats right...I actually think something is UNDER rated, believe it or not). Thats a difficult hole, and one I think most people are throwing wrong. Its tough to throw up hill, that long of a hole, and still maintain a lot of accuracy without getting the nose up too much and having it "fag out".

**I actually think its a a controlled Roc and THEN possibly a driver shot (as it clears out a bit more after 200 ft. or so)(or maybe YOU have the arm to throw another mid-range, where as I don't). Where I think most people are relying on driver THEN mid-range. Who knows...maybe I'm wrong, and thats why I still suck. But...I think that hole deserves more credit, cuz it can easily cost you 1 - 4 (or more) strokes.

K.C. wrote:I actually think its a a controlled Roc and THEN possibly a driver shot (as it clears out a bit more after 200 ft. or so)(or maybe YOU have the arm to throw another mid-range, where as I don't). Where I think most people are relying on driver THEN mid-range. Who knows...maybe I'm wrong, and thats why I still suck. But...I think that hole deserves more credit, cuz it can easily cost you 1 - 4 (or more) strokes.

I've been throwing a mid from the tee, same as you suggested (exept I use a cobra) but I still haven't figured it out. I think the problem is I'm not used to throwing that particular disc as hard as I try to throw it on that hole and then I get out of control. Mental issue I guess. Maybe next time I go out to Westlake I'll just take a whole pile of discs down to that tee and see what works. On the other hand its probably not the disc its more likely the operator.

That would remove about four deuce opportunities. How does that affect things? The cushion between the dam holes would be reduced down to only three holes in between. Should hole 12 be included in hypothetical WL18?

Btw, this is purely hypothetical. This has not been planned or discussed and will likely never happen. I guess the topic may be considered taboo by some since Eng is the man (but not The Man whose keepin u down), but… this is a discussion board, may as well provoke thoughts and discussion about the best disc golf course I’ve ever played. If I didn’t know the course designer’s open-minded and secure disposition, I probably wouldn’t beat the dead horse. But his legacy is written, and he’s moved away, so no bricks through my window.

So why even discuss it? My primary motivation is selfish: to protect my favorite course. Like a few others have expressed, I’m a little insecure about the picnic dangers on 10 and 11, combined with the fact that people tend to be selfish and inconsiderate. I don’t think disc golf has high enough priority out there to withstand several complaints or a major incident. Pork barrel in a few solutions to some of the issues / complaints / suggestions that have been discussed after tournaments, and here we are.

If this were ever considered in reality, some major issues to be resolved would include cost of new tee signs and what to do with the old tee signs, teepads, and baskets. Personally I would love to see a pair of baskets set 50’ apart near a camping area to get kids hooked on bangin’ chains playing catch.

Just wanted to bring this up while thoughts are still fresh from the Rumble.

If a complaint problem about conflict with other park users arises, how about just pull the 10/11 baskets and put them back in for tournaments (along with a reservation of that picnic area). No need to spend money on tee signs. Aside from 10/11, the rest of the holes proposed to be taken out (7,12,19) in the map above have some of the LEAST conflict with other park users, from what I've seen. What is the reason to take out 7,12,19 and change 22,23?

Worked with Mike the Axe last night at Devil’s Glen and it reminded me that I still need to reply to this. Primarily the reason for removing the four additional holes is to make it 18... not necessarily b/c there are real issues with them.

7: Storm damage knocked out the huge trees in the middle of the fairway. More importantly, the teepad is a blind landing zone for hole 8. And flow from 6 to 8 is perfect.

12: Flow (after removal of 10 & 11). This is a beautiful hole that would be missed. I've heard the idea of 9's tee to 12's basket, with some protective trees added by 13’s pad.

19: FLOW! And people hazard, as I've seen this basket used for a tackle box. When you finish this hole, because the Parks people blocked off the wooded trail, you’re supposed to walk all the way back down the fairway to get to 20. This hole also fields a few minor complaints from a golf standpoint, mostly the green area, after tournaments. Also, the flow from 18-20 is perfect.

22-23: People loved this safari hole! 22 is good, but not special. Combined, it could basically be the signature finishing hole, almost.

KePP wrote:Worked with Mike the Axe last night at Devil’s Glen and it reminded me that I still need to reply to this. Primarily the reason for removing the four additional holes is to make it 18... not necessarily b/c there are real issues with them.

7: Storm damage knocked out the huge trees in the middle of the fairway. More importantly, the teepad is a blind landing zone for hole 8. And flow from 6 to 8 is perfect.

12: Flow (after removal of 10 & 11). This is a beautiful hole that would be missed. I've heard the idea of 9's tee to 12's basket, with some protective trees added by 13’s pad.

19: FLOW! And people hazard, as I've seen this basket used for a tackle box. When you finish this hole, because the Parks people blocked off the wooded trail, you’re supposed to walk all the way back down the fairway to get to 20. This hole also fields a few minor complaints from a golf standpoint, mostly the green area, after tournaments. Also, the flow from 18-20 is perfect.

22-23: People loved this safari hole! 22 is good, but not special. Combined, it could basically be the signature finishing hole, almost.

Thanks for the reply. And for your work on the QC courses!

I realize there is tradition at play, but what is so special about 18 holes that one would delete good golf (and spend extra cash to renumber all the tee signs) just to make that magic number 18? For those who really insist that their round absolutely not exceed 18 holes, can't those individuals just skip some holes and let the rest of us play them? Devils is 12, Legion is 20, Exchange is 27, Rodeo is 36, etc., and often tournaments add a hole or two or three, so who cares if its a magic number 18 anyway.

I see your points about 7, losing those trees definitely changed it. As for the hazard with other groups of golfers on 7 and 8, the course is huge and gets little traffic, so unless its a tourney there's very little chance of hazard.

In a casual round the people who don't like 19 because of the narrow landing zone can just move on to 20. Before taking out one of the most fun and challenging holes on the course just because of a couple complaints, it seems like it would be worthwhile to try to negotiate with the rangers to get permission to clean up a wider landing zone.

23 is one of my favorite holes on the course. I think the elevated tee area makes it somewhat unique, and the safari 22/23 loses that feature. It becomes a longer version of 22 instead of a better version of 23.

It would cost a lot of money to permanently change West Lake to 18, whereas temporarily pulling the baskets from 10/11 except for tourneys and leaving all the tees and signage as they are would cost $0.